<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 15 March 2013 12:16 PM, Nick
Ashton-Hart wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA4D555A-C68D-4ACC-9B7C-A57331A24C5A@ccianet.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
inline responses
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On 14 Mar 2013, at 11:42, Jeremy Malcolm <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: 'Open Sans';
font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline
!important; float: none; ">Conceptually, of course, there
is no justification for the technical and academic
communities to be their own stakeholder group. WGIG
considered that question, and explicitly decided they
should not be. The WSIS output documents are a bit
ambiguous, but I've put the case that they too describe
only three separate stakeholder groups.</span><br
style="font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: medium;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That is your opinion, but not one that many would
recognise as a fact.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, it is a fact. WSIS output documents recognise three stakeholder
groups and two kinds of international organisations - inter gov and
technical standards making. "Technical and academic community" is
recognised as a cross cutting across the three stakeholder groups,
and clearly not a separate stakeholder group. Relevant parts of
Tunis Agenda is quoted below, whereby it is absolutely clear what is
what. (Bold highlights added)<br>
<br>
(begins)<br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><font face="Verdana" size="2"><font face="Verdana"
size="2">
<p align="left">35. We reaffirm <span style="font-weight:
400">
that the management of the Internet encompasses both
technical and public policy issues and should involve
all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations. In this respect it is
recognized that:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<ol type="a">
<li>
<p align="left">Policy authority for
Internet-related public policy issues is the
sovereign right of States. They have rights and
responsibilities for international
Internet-related public policy issues.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p align="left">The private sector has had, and
should continue to have, an important role in the
development of the Internet, both in the technical
and economic fields.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p align="left">Civil society has also played an
important role on Internet matters, especially at
community level, and should continue to play such
a role.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p align="left">Intergovernmental organizations have
had, and should continue to have, a facilitating
role in the coordination of Internet-related
public policy issues.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p align="left">International organizations have
also had and should continue to have an important
role in the development of Internet-related
technical standards and relevant policies.</p>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p align="left">36. We recognize<span style="font-weight:
400">
the valuable contribution by the <big><b>academic and
technical communities within those stakeholder
group</b><b>s</b></big> mentioned in paragraph 35
to the evolution, functioning and development of the
Internet.</span></p>
</font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
(ends)<br>
' <br>
It is clear that members of what is recognised as 'academic and
technical community' can be working with governments, private sector
or civil society (or indeed for international organisations)
However, their identity for the present purpose is independent of
that.<br>
<br>
Therefore, indeed, selections for reps from 'academic and technical'
community should have considered nominations of both 'technical' and
academic persons, from anywhere and everywhere . It is absolutely
wrong to limit it to those who work for technical bodies. It is also
wrong to limit this category to technical people alone or to
technical academics and exclude other academics connected to
Internet matters. It seems that the focal point for nominations for
this community has committed either both or at least the latter of
these two errors. <br>
<br>
The CSTD process has separate focal points for 'Inter gov and
International bodies' (this phrase must be read in keeping with
above quote from TA) and for 'technical and academic communities'.
If ICANN wants to send a rep they should approach the 'inter gov and
international bodies' focal point. If ISOC considers itself an
international technical standards body on behalf of IETF, IAB etc,
it should also approach this particular focal point. However, if it
is mediating on behalf of the wider technical and academic community
it needs to consider technical and academic people from anywhere and
everywhere as long as relevance of their expertise to IG matters is
established.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA4D555A-C68D-4ACC-9B7C-A57331A24C5A@ccianet.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: 'Open Sans';
font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline
!important; float: none; ">Nevertheless, the technical
community have carved out a separate stakeholder role for
themselves just on the basis of their historical (and
ongoing) role in the management of critical Internet
resources and standards. Whilst that is an important
role, it is hard to see it providing a coherent conceptual
basis to constitute them as a separate stakeholder group.</span><br
style="font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: medium;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Again, your opinion. I amongst others strongly disagree.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, not Jeremy's opinion. This is as per WSIS outcome documents as
above. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA4D555A-C68D-4ACC-9B7C-A57331A24C5A@ccianet.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: 'Open Sans';
font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline
!important; float: none; ">I've been called out for being
too critical of the technical community lately, but
actually I<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><i
style="font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: medium;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align:
-webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; ">am</i><span style="font-family: 'Open Sans';
font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline
!important; float: none; "><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>a member of the
technical community; former board member of ISOC-AU,
Secretary of Australia's first (non-profit) national ISP,
an open source software developer, have been a system
administrator, and former manager of two IT consultancies.</span><br
style="font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: medium;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jeremy, I can also claim to be technical - I've had a
technical career in IT that went from Sysadmin to hired gun
CIO; I've designed IP networks including multi-country
networks and programmed routers.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Neither of us is a member of the technical community. You
work for consumer interests and I work in policy for a trade
association. Members of the technical community work for
technical bodies.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Wrong again. TA is clear, technical and academic community members
can be working in governments, private sector, civil society,
anywhere......<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA4D555A-C68D-4ACC-9B7C-A57331A24C5A@ccianet.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><br style="font-family: 'Open Sans';
font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; ">
<span style="font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: medium;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none; ">So
I'm by no means an enemy of the technical community, I'm
just calling the shots as I see them; and the treatment
you have received, Michael, seems to me another example of
the wrong approach being taken at a high level by the
technical community's self-appointed representatives.</span><br
style="font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: medium;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div>I leave it to the community concerned to deal with this issue
and the questions arising from it, but I personally am unwilling
to decide judgment based upon one email from an interested party
in the issue - and simple fairness, I would have thought, should
mean that nobody else should do that either.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>